FINDINGS II
Proper
22- B - October 4, 2009
Mark 10: 2-16
(Genesis
2: 18-24, 24-29; Psalm 8; Hebrews 1:1-4; 2: 5-12)
 By Harry T. Cook
9/28/09
RUBRIC
Founding members of a humanist synagogue once told me that
their interest had turned from what had been written ("geschrieben") to what
might be written. They left what they took to be the limiting confines of
mid-20th century Reform Judaism to seek a new way. They were not so much
interested in merely reinterpreting the law which they had been taught from
their youths to obey, but to find or formulate for themselves a more relevant
and perhaps more just ethos for living.
That is the sense of the passage from According to Mark
which is the centerpiece of the readings for this coming Sunday in
congregations that use the Revised Common Lectionary. Marriage is its subject
and the rights and responsibilities inherent in it are part of the discussion.
The legitimizing aspect is imagined to be the proposition that a deity joins a
man and woman together, which I suppose seems a tad more preferable than your
ordinary arranged marriage that is so common in the region whence the gospels
in the first place. But, in keeping with what appears to be a central emphasis
in Mark, justice is the main idea.
To get to that point, it is necessary to start pretty much
all over again, which is what my Jewish friends did in abandoning the
strictures of their childhood religion to seek a new and, they hoped, better
way. St. Paul talked about the same thing when he spoke of putting away
childish things.
WORKSHOP
The Marcan narrative has turned a significant corner in the
verse just preceding the beginning of the passage in discussion. Jesus is
depicted as having gone to Judea "and beyond the Jordan" where large numbers of
people are said to have come to him. We are not sure how large such numbers
were, or to what extent Jesus' following actually was large. Certainly the
evangelists of the late First Century would have gone to whatever ends
necessary to portray a significant following. Such an effort would have been a
natural part of the enterprise of building up Jesus Judaism. In any event, the
fat is in the fire because in Mark's plot Jesus is heading for denouement. Luke
at 9:51 captures the drama of this juncture: "He sent his face toward
Jerusalem" -- "set his face" suggests a grim countenance connoting both
resignation and determination.
Why at this juncture in the narrative the question of
marriage and divorce is raised is an interesting inquiry in its own right. It
may not be so much the presenting issue (divorce) but the "test" referred to in
10:2. It might have been any issue. The test will be the first of many as Jesus
is depicted as approaching what will be his final test.
We will not devote many words to parsing the Jewish divorce
laws thought to have been in effect in the first third of the First Century,
except to point out that the question "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his
wife?" is already answered in that law. See Deuteronomy 24: 1-4 in which it is
spelled out just under what circumstances a divorce may legally be obtained.
The answer to the question is "Yes," because "that's what it says in the
bible." And, reading on in Deuteronomy and elsewhere in places in which the
issue is referenced, it is an inescapable fact that the woman gets the short
end of the stick. And that may be the central purpose of the story -- just at
the juncture at which Jesus heads for Jerusalem and the final confrontation.
The injustice visited on women in divorce like all injustices must be ended.
The issue is what happened to a woman when, as the
Deuteronomic code specifies, her man "finds something objectionable about her."
This is what happens: The man "writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in
her hand and sends her out of his house." End of story.
"Wrong," Mark's Jesus is made to say. Marriage must protect
women as well as men, and if it takes an a priori declaration to the effect that
the biblical god is party to the union, which therefore should not be sundered,
then so be it.
If that's what the text means, it is not difficult to see
how it would run cross-grain of first century custom and expectation. The
marriage/divorce code in some regions of the 21st century Mideast is not far
different. Neither is basic economic justice for women.
The introduction once again of children into the text hinges
upon the saying "whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child
will never enter it." Is it too much of a rationalization to interpret the use
of the saying at this place to mean that in dealing with such laws as the
marriage code of Deuteronomy it is almost necessary to start over, to be "born
again," as it were, in seeking a new and more just way?
Note: The
Genesis reading accompanying this gospel is an early Hebraic construction on
which the remarks about the nature of marriage in the Marcan passage may be
based.
HOMILETIC COMMENTARY
Those who take the Bible literally (and therefore not
seriously) have to deal with the line in the Marcan passage: "Whoever divorces
his wife and marries another commits adultery against her (the first wife). And
if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." The
first "she" in the second sentence may refer to the one who has been divorced.
Either way, the Law was clear that only a man can divorce. A woman could enter
a petition for divorce on grounds of a man's impotence or even sometimes on
cruelty, but the divorce itself was at the initiative of the husband.
In any case, those who believe Jesus spoke for the god in
whom they believed and must obey must likewise steer clear of divorce. We know
that there have been and will be plenty of cases of divorce among sincere and
believing people as well as among unbelievers who are nevertheless
self-governed by humane ethical standards.
Conservative legislators and commentators advocate marriage
as an economic staple as well as a moral one. In more agrarian days, marriage
was almost a necessity to make the farm function and to produce children who
could eventually be sent into the fields.
"Marriage" is a noun that names the relationship between
persons who have committed themselves to live together and share each other's
life. Usually, marriage involves a woman and a man, but sometimes persons of
the same sex. This, of course, is what the battle royal is about in
Anglican-Episcopal circles.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams,
is trying to hold his far-flung Anglican Communion together by demanding
(without any authority other than what he has in the Church of England) that
the more advanced sectors of the church -- the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A.,
in particular -- refrain from blessing same-sex marriages or ordaining gay or
lesbian women who are not celibate.
Williams' understanding of marriage was revealed in this statement
of July 2009: "As long as the Anglican church as a whole does not bless
same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious
incongruity have a representative function in a church whose public teaching is
at odds with their lifestyle."
The archbishop also frowns on blessing heterosexual couples
who are living "outside of marriage." What does that mean? That marriage is
only marriage when a priest pronounces it so? No, marriage is a relationship of
trust and consequent justice. That is the point of the Marcan passage before
us. It's not the gender; it's the justice and faithfulness of a caring
relationship that no one should unduly separate.
| |
